9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

Same; Same; Same; Essential Elements of an Employer-

Employee Relationship; The so-called “control test” is the most
important element.—Case law has consistently held that the
elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (a) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 583 control the employee on the means and methods by which the
work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called “control
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
test,” is the most important element.
*
Same; Same; Same; Independent Contractor; The specific
G.R. No. 138051. June 10, 2004.
selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent
and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a
JOSE Y. SONZA, petitioner,vs. ABS-CBN
circumstance indicative but not conclusive of independent
BROADCASTING CORPORATION, respondent.
contractual relationship; The method of selecting and engaging
SONZA does not conclusively determine his status.—Independent
Labor Law; Labor Code; Employer-Employee Relationship; contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills,
Existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees.
fact; Appellate courts accord the factual findings of the Labor The specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique
Arbiter and the NLRC not only respect but also finality when skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary
supported by substantial evidence; Court does not substitute its employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an
own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the independent contractual relationship. If SONZA did not possess
weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.—The existence such unique skills, talent and celebrity status, ABS-CBN would
of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact. not have entered into the Agreement with SONZA but would have
Appellate courts accord the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter hired him through its personnel department just like any other
and the NLRC not employee. In any event, the method of selecting and engaging
SONZA does not conclusively determine his status. We must
consider all the circumstances of the relationship, with the control
_______________
test being the most important element.
* FIRST DIVISION. Same; Same; Same; Same; Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed
arose from contract and not because of an employer-employee
relationship.—All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA
584 were the result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. If
SONZA were ABS-CBN’s employee, there would be no need for
the parties to stipulate on benefits such as “SSS, Medicare, x x x
and 13th month pay” which the law automatically incorporates
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
into every employer-employee contract. Whatever benefits
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation SONZA enjoyed arose from contract and not because of an
employer-employee relationship.

only respect but also finality when supported by substantial 585

evidence. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. A party cannot prove the absence of substantial VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 585
evidence by simply pointing out that there is contrary evidence on
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
record, direct or circumstantial. The Court does not substitute its
own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the
weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
Same; Same; Same; Same; The power to bargain talent fees
way above the salary scales of ordinary employees is a
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent
contractual relationship.—SONZA’s talent fees, amounting to
P317,000 monthly in the second and third year, are so huge and
out of the ordinary that they indicate more an independent
contractual relationship rather than an employer-employee
relationship. ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA such huge talent
fees precisely because of SONZA’s unique skills, talent and
celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees. Obviously,
SONZA acting alone possessed enough bargaining power to
demand and receive such huge talent fees for his services. The
power to bargain talent fees way above the salary scales of
ordinary employees is a circumstance indicative, but not
conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The greater the supervision and
control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an
employee; The less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the
worker is considered an independent contractor; Applying the
control test, SONZA is not an employee but an independent
contractor.—Applying the control test to the present case, we find
that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor.
The control test is the most important test our courts apply in
distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. This
test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a
worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer
exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The
converse holds true as well—the less control the hirer exercises,
the more likely the worker is considered an independent
contractor.
Same; Same; Same; Same; ABS-CBN did not exercise control
over the means and methods of performance of SONZA’s work.—
We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual
performance that produced the finished product of SONZA’s work.
ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-
CBN merely reserved the right to modify the program format and
airtime schedule “for more effective programming.” ABS-CBN’s
sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in
the ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the
means and methods of performance of SONZA’s work.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A radio broadcast specialist who
works under minimal supervision is an independent contractor.—
A radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal
supervision is an independent contractor. SONZA’s work as
television and radio program host required special skills and
talent, which SONZA admittedly possesses. The records do not
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
show that ABS-CBN exercised any supervision and control over
how SONZA utilized his skills and talent in his shows.
586
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Same; Same; Same; Same; In the broadcast industry,
exclusivity is not necessarily the same as control.—Being an
exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an
employee of ABS-CBN. Even an independent contractor can
validly provide his services exclusively to the hiring party. In the
broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same as
control.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Policy Instruction No. 40 is a mere
issuance which does not have the force and effect of law.—SONZA
argues that Policy Instruction No. 40 issued by then Minister of
Labor Blas Ople on 8 January 1979 finally settled the status of
workers in the broadcast industry. Under this policy, the types of
employees in the broadcast industry are the station and program
employees. Policy Instruction No. 40 is a mere executive issuance
which does not have the force and effect of law. There is no legal
presumption that Policy Instruction No. 40 determines SONZA’s
status. A mere executive issuance cannot exclude independent
contractors from the class of service providers to the broadcast
industry. The classification of workers in the broadcast industry
into only two groups under Policy Instruction No. 40 is not
binding on this Court, especially when the classification has no
basis either in law or in fact.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The right of labor to security of
tenure as guaranteed in the Constitution arises only if there is an
employer-employee relationship under labor laws; Not every
performance of services for a fee creates an employer-employee
relationship.—The right of labor to security of tenure as
guaranteed in the Constitution arises only if there is an employer-
employee relationship under labor laws. Not every performance of
services for a fee creates an employer-employee relationship. To
hold that every person who renders services to another for a fee is
an employee—to give meaning to the security of tenure clause—
will lead to absurd results.
Same; Same; Labor Arbiter; The Labor Arbiter can decide a
case based solely on the position papers and the supporting
documents without a formal trial; The holding of a formal hearing
or trial is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of
3/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
right; Subject to the requirements of due process, the technicalities
of law and the rules obtaining in the courts of law do not strictly
apply in proceedings before a Labor Arbiter.—The Labor Arbiter
can decide a case based solely on the position papers and the
supporting documents without a formal trial. The holding of a
formal hearing or trial is something that the parties cannot
demand as a matter of right. If the Labor Arbiter is confident that
he can rely on the documents before him, he cannot be faulted for
not conducting a formal trial, unless under the particular
circumstances of the case, the documents alone are insufficient.
The proceedings before a Labor Arbiter are non-litigious in
nature. Subject to the requirements of due process, the techni-
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
calities of law and the rules obtaining in the courts of law do not
strictly apply in proceedings before a Labor Arbiter.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Theodore O. Te for petitioner.
     Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz for respondent
ABS-CBN.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari
2
assailing the 26 March 1999 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49190 dismissing the petition
filed by Jose Y. Sonza (“SONZA”). The Court of Appeals
affirmed the findings of the National Labor Relations
Commission (“NLRC”), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s
dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The Facts
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
In May 1994, respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation (“ABS-CBN”) signed an Agreement
(“Agreement”) with the Mel and Jay Management and
Development Corporation (“MJMDC”). ABS-CBN was
represented by its corporate officers while MJMDC was
represented by SONZA, as President and General
Manager, and Carmela Tiangco (“TIANGCO”), as EVP and
Treasurer. Referred to in the Agreement as “AGENT,”
MJMDC agreed to provide SONZA’s services exclusively to
ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. The
Agreement listed the services SONZA would render to
ABS-CBN, as follows:
587 a. Co-host for Mel & Jay radio program, 8:00 to 10:00 a.m.,
Mondays to Fridays;
_______________
587
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Associate
Justices Jesus M. Elbinias and Marina L. Buzon concurring.
588
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
b. Co-host
3
for Mel & Jay television program, 5:30 to 7:00 p.m.,
Sundays.
ABS-CBN agreed to pay for SONZA’s services a monthly
talent fee of P310,000 for the first year and P317,000 for
the second and third year of the Agreement. ABS-CBN
would pay the talent fees on the 10th and 25th days of the
month.
On 1 April 1996, SONZA wrote a letter to ABS-CBN’s
1
President, Eugenio Lopez III, which reads:
Dear Mr. Lopez,
We would like to call your attention to the Agreement
dated May 1994 entered into by your goodself on behalf
of ABS-CBN with our company relative to our talent
JOSE Y. SONZA.
As you are well aware, Mr. Sonza irrevocably
resigned in view of recent events concerning his
programs and career. We consider these acts of the
station violative of the Agreement and the station as in
5/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
breach thereof. In this connection, we hereby serve
notice of rescission of said Agreement at our instance
effective as of date.
Mr. Sonza informed us that he is waiving and
renouncing recovery of the remaining amount
stipulated in paragraph 7 of the Agreement but
reserves the right to seek recovery of the other benefits
under said Agreement.
Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,      matter of defense. It behooves upon it the duty to prove that there
(Sgd.)     
JOSE Y. SONZA      The Labor Arbiter then considered the case submitted for
4
President and Gen. Manager       resolution. The parties submitted their position papers on
On 30 April 1996, SONZA filed a complaint against ABS-
CBN before the Department of Labor and Employment,
National Capital Region in Quezon City. SONZA
complained that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries,
separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month
pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts due
under the Employees Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”).
_______________
3 Rollo, p. 150.
4 Ibid., p. 204.
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
On 10 July 1996, ABS-CBN filed a Motion to Dismiss on
the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed
between the parties. SONZA filed an Opposition to the
motion on 19 July 1996.
Meanwhile, ABS-CBN continued to remit SONZA’s
monthly talent fees through his account at PCIBank,
Quezon Avenue Branch, Quezon City. In July 1996, ABS-
CBN opened a new account with the same bank where
ABS-CBN deposited SONZA’s talent fees and other
payments due him under the Agreement. 5
In his Order dated 2 December 1996, the Labor Arbiter
denied the motion to dismiss and directed the parties to file
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
their respective position papers. The Labor Arbiter ruled:
In this instant case, complainant for having invoked a claim that
he was an employee of respondent company until April 15, 1996
and that he was not paid certain claims, it is sufficient enough as
to confer jurisdiction over the instant case in this Office. And as to
whether or not such claim would entitle complainant to recover
upon the causes of action asserted is a matter to be resolved only
after and as a result of a hearing. Thus, the respondent’s plea of
lack of employer-employee relationship may be pleaded only as a
really is no employer-employee relationship between it and the
complainant.
24 February 1997.
On 11 March 1997, SONZA filed a Reply to Respondent’s
Position Paper with Motion to Expunge Respondent’s
Annex 4 and Annex 5 from the Records. Annexes 4 and 5
are affidavits of ABS-CBN’s witnesses Soccoro Vidanes and
Rolando V. Cruz. These witnesses stated in their affidavits
that the prevailing practice in the television and broadcast
industry is to treat talents like SONZA as independent
contractors.
The Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision dated 8 6 July
1997 dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The
pertinent parts of the decision read as follows:
589 _______________
5 Donato G. Quinto, Jr.
589 6 Rollo, pp. 114-130.
590
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
xxx
While Philippine jurisprudence has not yet, with certainty,
touched on the “true nature of the contract of a talent,” it stands
to reason that a “talent” as above-described cannot be considered
as an employee by reason of the peculiar circumstances
surrounding the engagement of his services.
It must be noted that complainant was engaged by respondent
by reason of his peculiar skills and talent as a TV host and a radio
7/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
broadcaster. Unlike an ordinary employee, he was free to perform
the services he undertook to render in accordance with his own
style. The benefits conferred to complainant under the May 1994
Agreement are certainly very much higher than those generally
given to employees. For one, complainant Sonza’s monthly talent
fees amount to a staggering P317,000. Moreover, his engagement
as a talent was covered by a specific contract. Likewise, he was
not bound to render eight (8) hours of work per day as he worked
only for such number of hours as may be necessary.
The fact that per the May 1994 Agreement complainant was
accorded some benefits normally given to an employee is
inconsequential. Whatever benefits complainant enjoyed arose
from specific agreement by the parties and not by reason of
employer-employee relationship. As correctly put by the
respondent, “All these benefits are merely talent fees and other
contractual benefits and should not be deemed as ‘salaries, wages
and/or other remuneration’ accorded to an employee,
notwithstanding the nomenclature appended to these benefits.
Apropos to this is the rule that the term or nomenclature given to
a stipulated benefit is not controlling, but the intent of the parties
to the Agreement conferring such benefit.”
The fact that complainant was made subject to respondent’s
Rules and Regulations, likewise, does not detract from the absence
of employer-employee relationship. As held by the Supreme Court,
“The line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as
guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result
without dictating the means or methods to be employed in
attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and
bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. The first,
which aim only to promote the result, create no employer-
employee relationship unlike the second, which address both the
result and the means to achieve it.” (Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.
7
84484, November 15, 1989).
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
SONZA appealed to the NLRC. On 24 February 1998, the
NLRC rendered a Decision affirming the Labor Arbiter’s
decision. SONZA
_______________
7 Ibid., pp. 123-125.
591
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 591
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied
in its Resolution dated 3 July 1998.
On 6 October 1998, SONZA filed a special civil action for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the decision
and resolution of the NLRC. On 26 March 1999, the 8
Court
of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the case.
Hence, this petition.
The Rulings of the NLRC and Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s finding that no
employer-employee relationship existed between SONZA
and ABS-CBN. Adopting the NLRC’s decision, the
appellate court quoted the following findings of the NLRC:
x x x the May 1994 Agreement will readily reveal that MJMDC
entered into the contract merely as an agent of complainant
Sonza, the principal. By all indication and as the law puts it, the
act of the agent is the act of the principal itself. This fact is made
particularly true in this case, as admittedly MJMDC ‘is a
management company devoted exclusively to managing the
careers of Mr. Sonza and his broadcast partner, Mrs. Carmela C.
Tiangco.’ (Opposition to Motion to Dismiss)
Clearly, the relations of principal and agent only accrues
between complainant Sonza and MJMDC, and not between ABS-
CBN and MJMDC. This is clear from the provisions of the May
1994 Agreement which specifically referred to MJMDC as the
‘AGENT.’ As a matter of fact, when complainant herein
unilaterally rescinded said May 1994 Agreement, it was MJMDC
which issued the notice of rescission in behalf of Mr. Sonza, who
himself signed the same in his capacity as President.
Moreover, previous contracts between Mr. Sonza and ABS-
CBN reveal the fact that historically, the parties to the said
agreements are ABS-CBN and Mr. Sonza. And it is only in the
May 1994 Agreement, which is the latest Agreement executed
between ABS-CBN and Mr. Sonza, that MJMDC figured in the
said Agreement as the agent of Mr. Sonza.
We find it erroneous to assert that MJMDC is a mere ‘labor-
only’ contractor of ABS-CBN such that there exist[s] employer-
employee relationship between the latter and Mr. Sonza. On the
contrary, We find it indubitable, that MJMDC is an agent, not of
ABS-CBN, but of the talent/contractor Mr. Sonza, as expressly
admitted by the latter and MJMDC in the May 1994 Agreement.
_______________
8 Ibid., p. 39.
9/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

592 thus, lie with the regular courts. As held in the case of Dai-Chi
Electronics Manufacturing vs. Villarama, 238 SCRA 267, 21
November 1994, an action 9for breach of contractual obligation is
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
intrinsically a civil dispute. (Emphasis supplied)
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
_______________
It may not be amiss to state that jurisdiction over the instant
controversy indeed belongs to the regular courts, the same being 9 Rollo, pp. 37-39.
in the nature of an action for alleged breach of contractual
593
obligation on the part of respondent-appellee. As squarely
apparent from complainant-appellant’s Position Paper, his claims
for compensation for services, ‘13th month pay’, signing bonus and VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 593
travel allowance against respondent-appellee are not based on the Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Labor Code but rather on the provisions of the May 1994
Agreement, while his claims for proceeds under Stock Purchase
The Court of Appeals ruled that the existence of an
Agreement are based on the latter. A portion of the Position Paper
employer-employee relationship between SONZA and ABS-
of complainant-appellant bears perusal:
CBN is a factual question
10
that is within the jurisdiction of
‘Under [the May 1994 Agreement] with respondent ABS-CBN, the latter the NLRC to resolve. A special civil action for certiorari
contractually bound itself to pay complainant a signing bonus consisting extends only
11
to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction of
of shares of stocks…with FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS the NLRC. Such action cannot cover an inquiry into the
(P500,000.00). correctness of the evaluation of the12 evidence which served
Similarly, complainant is also entitled to be paid 13th month pay as basis of the NLRC’s conclusion. The Court of Appeals
based on an amount not lower than the amount he was receiving prior to added that it could not re-examine the parties’ evidence
effectivity of (the) Agreement’. and 13
substitute the factual findings of the NLRC with its
Under paragraph 9 of (the May 1994 Agreement), complainant is own.
entitled to a commutable travel benefit amounting to at least One
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) per year.’
The Issue
Thus, it is precisely because of complainant-appellant’s own
recognition of the fact that his contractual relations with ABS- In assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals, SONZA
CBN are founded on the New Civil Code, rather than the Labor contends that:
Code, that instead of merely resigning from ABS-CBN, THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING
complainant-appellant served upon the latter a ‘notice of THE NLRC’S DECISION AND REFUSING TO FIND THAT AN
rescission’ of Agreement with the station, per his letter dated EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTED
April 1, 1996, which asserted that instead of referring to unpaid BETWEEN SONZA AND ABS-CBN, DESPITE THE WEIGHT
employee benefits, ‘he is waiving and renouncing recovery of the OF CONTROLLING LAW, JURISPRUDENCE AND EVIDENCE
remaining amount stipulated in paragraph 7 of the Agreement TO SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING.
14

but reserves the right to such recovery of the other benefits under
said Agreement.’ (Annex 3 of the respondent ABS-CBN’s Motion
to Dismiss dated July 10, 1996).
Evidently, it is precisely by reason of the alleged violation of The Court’s Ruling
the May 1994 Agreement and/or the Stock Purchase Agreement
We affirm the assailed decision.
by respondent-appellee that complainant-appellant filed his
No convincing reason exists to warrant a reversal of the
complaint. Complainant-appellant’s claims being anchored on the
decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the NLRC ruling
alleged breach of contract on the part of respondent-appellee, the
which upheld the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the case for
same can be resolved by reference to civil law and not to labor
lack of jurisdiction.
law. Consequently, they are within the realm of civil law and,

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/32

9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

The present controversy is one of first impression. tribunal in determining where17

the weight of evidence lies
Although Philippine labor laws and jurisprudence define or what evidence is credible.
clearly the elements of an employer-employee relationship, SONZA maintains that all essential elements of an
this is the first time that the Court will resolve the nature employer-employee relationship are present in this case.
of the relationship between a television and radio station Case law has consistently held that the elements of an
and one of its “talents.” There is no case law stating that a employer-employee relationship are: (a) the selection and
radio and television program host is an employee of the engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c)
broadcast station. the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to
The instant case involves big names in the broadcast control the employee on the means and methods
industry, namely Jose “Jay” Sonza, a known television and
radio personality, _______________

15 Fleischer Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,

_______________
G.R. No. 121608, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 105; AFP Mutual Benefit
10 Ibid., p. 39. Association, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
11 Ibid. 102199, 28 January 1997, 267 SCRA 47; Cathedral School of Technology v.
12 Ibid. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 101438, 13 October 1992,
13 Ibid. 214 SCRA 551. See also Ignacio v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., 417 Phil.
14 Ibid., p. 269. 747; 365 SCRA 418 (2001); Gonzales v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 131653, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 195; Sandigan
594
Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
324 Phil. 348; 254 SCRA 126 (1996); Magnolia Dairy Products
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 322 Phil. 508; 252

Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation SCRA 483 (1996).

16 Madlos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 324 Phil. 498; 254
SCRA 248 (1996).
and ABS-CBN, one of the biggest television and radio
17 Domasig v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118101,
networks in the country.
16 September 1996, 261 SCRA 779.
SONZA contends that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction
over the case because he was an employee of ABS-CBN. On 595
the other hand, ABS-CBN insists that the Labor Arbiter
has no jurisdiction because SONZA was an independent
contractor. VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 595
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Employee or Independent Contractor? 18
by which the work is accomplished. The last element, 19
the
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a socalled “control test,” is the most important element.
question of fact. Appellate courts accord the factual
findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC not only A. Selection and Engagement of Employee
respect but
15
also finality when supported by substantial ABS-CBN engaged SONZA’s services to co-host its
evidence. Substantial evidence means such relevant television and radio programs because of SONZA’s peculiar
evidence as a reasonable
16
mind might accept as adequate to skills, talent and celebrity status. SONZA contends that
support a conclusion. A party cannot prove the absence of the “discretion used by respondent in specifically selecting
substantial evidence by simply pointing out that there is and hiring complainant over other broadcasters of possibly
contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial. The similar experience and qualification as complainant belies
Court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the respondent’s claim of independent contractorship.”

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/32

9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
Independent contractors often present themselves to
possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish
them from ordinary employees. The specific selection and
hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent and
celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an
independent contractual relationship. If SONZA did not
possess such unique skills, talent and celebrity status,
ABS-CBN would not have entered into the Agreement with
SONZA but would have hired him through its personnel
department just like any other employee.
In any event, the method of selecting and engaging
SONZA does not conclusively determine his status. We
must consider all the circumstances of the relationship,
with the control test being the most important element.
B. Payment of Wages
ABS-CBN directly paid SONZA his monthly talent fees
with no part of his fees going to MJMDC. SONZA asserts
that this mode of fee payment shows that he was an
employee of ABS-CBN. SONZA also points out that ABS-
CBN granted him benefits and privileges
_______________
18 De Los Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 423 Phil.
1020; 372 SCRA 723 (2001); Traders Royal Bank v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 378 Phil. 1081; 321 SCRA 467 (1999); Aboitiz
Shipping Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 78711, 27 June 1990, 186 SCRA 825; Ruga v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 72654-61, 22 January 1990, 181 SCRA
266.
19 Ibid.
596
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
“which he would not have enjoyed if he were truly the
subject of a valid job contract.”
All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the
result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. If SONZA
were ABS-CBN’s employee, there would be no need for the
parties to stipulate on benefits such as “SSS, Medicare, x x
20
x and 13th month pay” which the law automatically
21
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
21
incorporates into every employer-employee contract.
Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose from contract 22
and
not because of an employer-employee relationship.
SONZA’s talent fees, amounting to P317,000 monthly in
the second and third year, are so huge and out of the
ordinary that they indicate more an independent
contractual relationship rather than an employer-employee
relationship. ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA such huge
talent fees precisely because of SONZA’s unique skills,
talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary
employees. Obviously, SONZA acting alone possessed
enough bargaining power to demand and receive such huge
talent fees for his services. The power to bargain talent fees
way above the salary scales of ordinary employees is a
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an
independent contractual relationship.
The payment of talent fees directly to SONZA and not to
MJMDC does not negate the status of SONZA as an
independent contractor. The parties expressly agreed on
such mode of payment.
_______________
20 Paragraph 10 of the Agreement provides: “The COMPANY shall
provide him with the following benefits: SSS, Medicare, Healthcare,
executive life and accident insurance, and a 13th-month pay based on an
amount not lower than the amount he was receiving prior to the effectivity
of this Agreement.”
21 Presidential Decree No. 851 (Requiring All Employers to Pay their
Employees a 13th-month Pay) for the 13th month pay; Republic Act No.
1161 (Social Security Law) for the SSS benefits; and Republic Act No.
7875 (National Health Insurance Act of 1995) for the Philhealth
insurance.
22 Article 1157 of the Civil Code explicitly provides:
Obligations arise from:
(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts. (Emphasis supplied)
597
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 597
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
15/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

Under the Agreement, MJMDC is the AGENT of SONZA,

to whom MJMDC would have to turn over any talent fee 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
accruing under the Agreement.
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
C. Power of Dismissal
For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either SONZA assails the Labor Arbiter’s interpretation of his
party may terminate their relationship. SONZA failed to rescission of the Agreement as an admission that he is not
show that ABS-CBN could terminate his services on an employee of ABS-CBN. The Labor Arbiter stated that “if
grounds other than breach of contract, such as it were true that complainant was really an employee, he
retrenchment to prevent losses as provided under labor would merely resign, instead.” SONZA did actually resign
from ABS-CBN but he also, as president of MJMDC,
23
laws.
During the life of the Agreement, ABS-CBN agreed to rescinded
26
the Agreement. SONZA’s letter clearly bears this
pay SONZA’s talent fees as long as “AGENT and Jay Sonza out. However, the manner by which SONZA terminated
shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of his relationship with ABS-CBN is immaterial. Whether
SONZA rescinded the Agreement or resigned from work
24
this Agreement.” Even if it suffered severe business
losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench SONZA because ABS- does not determine his status as employee or independent
CBN remained obligated to pay SONZA’s talent fees during contractor.
the life of the Agreement. This circumstance indicates an
D. Power of Control
independent contractual relationship between SONZA and
ABS-CBN. Since there is no local precedent on whether a radio and
SONZA admits that even after ABS-CBN ceased television program host is an employee or an independent
broadcasting his programs, ABS-CBN still paid him his contractor, we refer to foreign case law in analyzing the
talent fees. Plainly, ABS-CBN adhered to its undertaking present case. The United States Court of Appeals, First
in the Agreement to continue paying SONZA’s talent fees Circuit, recently held in Alberty-Vélez v. Corporación
27
De
during the remaining life of the Agreement even if ABS- Puerto Rico Para La Difusión Pública (“WIPR”) that a
CBN cancelled SONZA’s programs through no fault of television program host is an independent contractor. We
25
SONZA. quote the following findings of the U.S. court:

Several factors favor classifying Alberty as an independent

_______________ contractor. First, a television actress is a skilled position requiring
23 See Article 283, Labor Code. talent and training not available on-the-job. x x x In this regard,
24 Paragraph 7 of the Agreement states: “Provided that the AGENT and
Alberty possesses a master’s degree in public communications and
Jay Sonza shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of this
journalism; is trained in dance, singing, and modeling; taught
Agreement for and in consideration of the aforesaid services by the
with the drama department at the University of Puerto Rico; and
AGENT and its talent, the COMPANY agrees to pay the AGENT for the
acted in several theater and television productions prior to her
first year of this Agreement the amount of THREE HUNDRED TEN
affiliation with “Desde Mi Pueblo.” Second, Alberty provided the
THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P310,000.00) per month, payable on the 10th
“tools and instrumentalities” necessary for her to perform.
and 25th of each month. For the second and third year of this Agreement,
Specifically, she provided, or obtained sponsors to provide, the
the COMPANY shall pay the amount of THREE HUNDRED
costumes, jewelry, and other image-related supplies and services
SEVENTEEN THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P317,000.00) per month,
necessary for her appearance. Alberty disputes that this factor
payable likewise on the 10th and 25th of the each month.”
favors independent contractor status because WIPR provided the
25 Paragraph 11 of the Agreement states: “In the event of cancellation
“equipment necessary to tape the show.” Alberty’s argument is
of this Agreement through no fault of the AGENT and its talent,
misplaced. The equipment necessary for Alberty to conduct her
COMPANY agrees to pay the full amount specified in this Agreement for
job as host of “Desde Mi Pueblo” related to her appearance on the
the remaining period covered by this Agreement, provided that the talent
show. Others provided equipment for filming and pro-
shall not render any service for or in any other radio or television produc
_______________
598

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/32

9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
tion of any person, firm, corporation or any entity competing with the
COMPANY until the expiry hereof.”
26 The opening sentence of the second paragraph of SONZA’s letter reads:
“As you are well aware, Mr. Sonza irrevocably resigned in view of recent events
concerning his programs and career. x x x”
27 361 F.3d 1, 2 March 2004.
599
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 599
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
ducing the show, but these were not the primary tools that
Alberty used to perform her particular function. If we accepted
this argument, independent contractors could never work on
collaborative projects because other individuals often provide the
equipment required for different aspects of the collaboration. x x x
Third, WIPR could not assign Alberty work in addition to
filming “Desde Mi Pueblo.” Alberty’s contracts with WIPR
specifically provided that WIPR hired her “professional services
as Hostess for the Program Desde Mi Pueblo.” There is no
evidence that WIPR assigned28 Alberty tasks in addition to work
related to these tapings. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Applying the control test to the present case, we find that
SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor.
The control test is the most important test our courts apply
in distinguishing an employee from an independent
29
contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the
hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision
and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker
is deemed an employee. The converse holds
_______________
28 See also Spirides v. Reinhardt, 486 F. Supp. 685 (1980).
29 In the United States, aside from the right of control test, there are
the “economic reality” test and the “multi-factor test.” The tests are drawn
from statutes, regulations, rules, policies, rulings, case law and the like.
The “right of control” test applies under the Federal Internal Revenue
Code (“IRC”). The “economic reality” test applies to the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”).29 The California Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement (“DLSE”) uses a hybrid of these two tests often referred to as
the “multi-factor test” in determining who an employee is.
Most courts in the United States have utilized the control test to
determine whether one is an employee. Under this test, a court must
consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
which the product is accomplished. Among other factors relevant to this
inquiry are the skills required; the source of the instrumentalities and
tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between
the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional
projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over
when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role
in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular
business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the
provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.
(www.piercegorman.com., quoted from the article entitled “Management-
side employment law advice for the entertainment industry” with subtitle
“Classification of Workers: Independent Contractors versus Employee” by
David Albert Pierce, Esq.)
600
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
true as well—the less control the hirer exercises, the more
30
likely the worker is considered an independent contractor.
First, SONZA contends that ABS-CBN exercised control
over the means and methods of his work.
SONZA’s argument is misplaced. ABS-CBN engaged
SONZA’s services specifically to co-host the “Mel & Jay”
programs. ABS-CBN did not assign any other work to
SONZA. To perform his work, SONZA only needed his
skills and talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared
on television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-
CBN’s control. SONZA did not have to render eight hours
of work per day. The Agreement required SONZA to attend
only rehearsals and tapings of the shows,
31
as well as pre-
and post-production staff meetings. ABS-CBN could not
dictate the contents of SONZA’s script. However, the
Agreement prohibited SONZA 32
from criticizing in his shows
ABS-CBN or its interests. The clear implication is that
SONZA had a free hand on what to say or discuss in his
shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its interests.
We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual
performance that33
produced the finished product of
SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to
perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to
modify the program format and air-
_______________
19/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
30 www.piercegorman.com., quoted from the article entitled
“Management-side employment law advice for the entertainment
industry” with subtitle “Classification of Workers: Independent
Contractors versus Employee” by David Albert Pierce, Esq.
31 Paragraph 4 of the Agreement provides: “AGENT will make available
Jay Sonza for rehearsals and tapings of the Programs on the day and time
set by the producer and director of the Programs and to attend pre and
post production staff meetings.”
32 Paragraph 15 of the Agreement provides: “AGENT, talent shall not
use the Programs as a venue to broadcast or announce any criticism on
any operational, administrative, or legal problems, situations or other
matter which may occur, exist or alleged to have occurred or existed
within the COMPANY. Likewise, AGENT, talent shall, in accordance with
good broadcast management and ethics, take up with the proper officers of
the COMPANY suggestions or criticisms on any matter or condition
affecting the COMPANY or its relation to the public or third parties.”
33 In Zhengxing v. Nathanson, 215 F.Supp.2d 114, citing Redd v.
Summers, 232 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir.), plaintiff’s superior was not involved in
the actual performance that produced the final product.
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
34
time schedule “for more effective programming.” ABS-
CBN’s sole concern was the quality of the shows and their
standing in the ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise
control over the means and methods of performance of
SONZA’s work.
SONZA claims that ABS-CBN’s power not to broadcast
his shows proves ABS-CBN’s power over the means and
methods of the performance of his work. Although ABS-
CBN did have the option not to broadcast SONZA’s show,
ABS-CBN was still obligated to pay SONZA’s talent fees.
Thus, even if ABS-CBN was completely dissatisfied with
the means and methods of SONZA’s performance of his
work, or even with the quality or product of his work, ABS-
CBN could not dismiss or even discipline SONZA. All that
ABS-CBN could do is not to broadcast SONZA’s show but
35
ABS-CBN must still pay his talent fees in full.
Clearly, ABS-CBN’s right not to broadcast SONZA’s
show, burdened as it was by the obligation to continue
paying in full SONZA’s talent fees, did not amount to
control over the means and methods of the performance of
SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN could not terminate or discipline
SONZA even if the means and methods of performance of
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
his work—how he delivered his lines and appeared on
television—did not meet ABS-CBN’s approval. This proves
that ABS-CBN’s control was limited only to the result of
SONZA’s work, whether to broadcast the final product or
not. In either case, ABS-CBN must still pay SONZA’s
talent fees in full until the expiry of the36Agreement.
In Vaughan, et al. v. Warner, et al., the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that vaudeville performers
were independent contractors although the management
reserved the right to delete objectionable features in their
shows. Since the management did not have control over the
manner of performance of the skills of the artists, it could
only control
37
the result of the work by deleting objectionable
features.
_______________
34 Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provides: “The COMPANY reserves
the right to modify the program format and likewise change airtime
schedule for more effective programming.”
601 35 The right not to broadcast an independent contractor’s show also
gives the radio and television station protection in case it deems the
contents of the show libelous.
601
36 157 F.2d 26, 8 August 1946.
37 Ibid.
602
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
SONZA further contends that ABS-CBN exercised control
over his work by supplying all equipment and crew. No
doubt, ABS-CBN supplied the equipment, crew and airtime
needed to broadcast the “Mel & Jay” programs. However,
the equipment, crew and airtime are not the “tools and
instrumentalities” SONZA needed to perform his job. What
SONZA principally needed were his talent 38
or skills and the
costumes necessary for his appearance. Even though ABS-
CBN provided SONZA with the place of work and the
necessary equipment, SONZA was still an independent
contractor since ABS-CBN did not supervise and control
his work. ABS-CBN’s sole concern was for SONZA 39
to
display his talent during the airing of the programs.
A radio broadcast specialist who works40 under minimal
supervision is an independent contractor. SONZA’s work
as television and radio program host required special skills
21/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
and talent, which SONZA admittedly possesses. The
records do not show that ABS-
_______________
38 In Zhengxing v. Nathanson, 215 F.Supp.2d 114, 5 August 2002,
plaintiff was also provided with the place of work and equipment to be
used.
39 In the Alberty case, the US Court of Appeals rejected Alberty’s
contention that WIPR provided the “equipment necessary to tape the
show.” The court held there that “the equipment necessary for Alberty to
conduct her job as program host related to her appearance on the show.
Others provided equipment for filming and producing the show, but these
were not the primary tools that Alberty used to perform her particular
function.” Since Alberty provided, or obtained sponsors to provide, the
costumes, jewelry, and other image-related supplies and services
necessary for her appearance, she provided the “tools
instrumentalities” necessary for her to perform. The US Court of Appeals
added that if it accepted Alberty’s argument, independent contractors
could never work on collaborative projects because other individuals often
provide the equipment required for different aspects of the collaboration.
The Alberty case further ruled that “while ‘control’ over the manner,
location, and hours of work is often critical to the independent
contractor/employee analysis, it must be considered in light of the work
performed and the industry at issue. Considering the tasks that an actor
performs, the court does not believe that the sort of control identified by
Alberty necessarily indicates employee status.”
40 In Zhengxing, a Chinese language broadcaster and translator was
deemed an independent contractor because she worked under minimal
supervision. The U.S. court also found that plaintiff was required to
possess specialized knowledge before commencing her position as a
broadcaster.
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
CBN exercised any supervision and control over how
SONZA utilized his skills and talent in his shows.
Second, SONZA urges us to rule that he was ABS-CBN’s
employee because ABS-CBN subjected him to its rules and
standards of performance. SONZA claims that this
indicates ABS-CBN’s control “not only [over] his manner of
work but also the quality of his work.”
The Agreement stipulates that SONZA shall abide with 41
the rules and standards of performance “covering talents”
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
of ABS-CBN. The Agreement does not require SONZA to
comply with the rules and standards of performance
prescribed for employees of ABS-CBN. The code of conduct
imposed on SONZA under the Agreement refers to the
“Television and Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga
Broadcaster sa Pilipinas (KBP), which has been adopted 42
by
the COMPANY (ABS-CBN) as its Code of Ethics.” The
KBP code applies to broadcasters, not to employees of radio
and television stations. Broadcasters are not necessarily
employees of radio and television stations. Clearly, the
rules and standards of performance referred to in the
Agreement are those applicable to talents and not to
employees of ABS-CBN.
In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party
on the hired43 party indicate that the latter is an employee of
the former. In this case, SONZA failed to show that these
and rules controlled his performance. We find that these
general rules are merely guidelines towards the
achievement of the mutually desired result, which are top-
rating television and radio programs that comply with
standards of the industry. We have ruled that:
_______________
41 Paragraph 13 of the Agreement provides: “AGENT agrees that talent
shall abide by the rules, regulations and standards of performance of the
COMPANY covering talents, and that talent is bound to comply with the
Television and Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster sa
Pilipinas (KBP), which has been adopted by the COMPANY as its Code of
Ethics. AGENT shall perform and keep all of the duties and obligations
assumed or entered by the AGENT hereunder using its best talents and
abilities. Any violation of or non-conformity with this provision by talent
shall be a valid and sufficient ground for the immediate termination of the
603 Agreement.” (Emphasis supplied)
42 Ibid.
603 43 AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 102199, 28 January 1997, 267 SCRA 47.
604
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Further, not every form of control that a party reserves to himself
over the conduct of the other party in relation to the services
being rendered may be accorded the effect of establishing an
employer-employee relationship. The facts of this case fall
23/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
squarely with the case of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs.
NLRC. In said case, we held that:
Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as
guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result
without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it,
and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the
party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to
promote the result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike the
44
second, which address both the result and the means used to achieve it.
The Vaughan case also held that one could still be an
independent contractor although the hirer reserved certain
supervision to insure the attainment of the desired result.
The hirer, however, must not deprive the one hired 45from
performing his services according to his own initiative.
Lastly, SONZA insists that the “exclusivity clause” in
the Agreement is the most extreme form of control which
ABS-CBN exercised over him.
This argument is futile. Being an exclusive talent does
not by itself mean that SONZA is an employee of ABS-
CBN. Even an independent contractor can validly provide
his services exclusively to the hiring party. In the
broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same
as control.
The hiring of exclusive talents is a widespread 46
and
accepted practice in the entertainment industry. This
practice is not designed to control the means and methods
of work of the talent, but simply to protect the investment
of the broadcast station. The broadcast station normally
spends substantial amounts of money, time and effort “in
building up its talents as well as the programs they appear
in and thus expects that said talents remain exclusive
47
with
the station for a commensurate period of time.” Normally,
a much higher fee is paid to talents who agree to work
exclusively for
_______________
44 Ibid.
45 Supra note 36.
46 Rollo, p. 302.
47 Ibid.
605
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 605
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
a particular radio or television station. In short, the huge
talent fees partially compensates for exclusivity, as in the
present case.
MJMDC as Agent of SONZA
SONZA protests the Labor Arbiter’s finding that he is a
talent of MJMDC, which contracted out his services to
ABS-CBN. The Labor Arbiter ruled that as a talent of
MJMDC, SONZA is not an employee of ABS-CBN. SONZA
insists that MJMDC is a “labor-only” contractor and ABS-
CBN is his employer.
In a labor-only contract, there are three parties involved:
(1) the “labor-only” contractor; (2) the employee who is
ostensibly under the employ of the “labor-only” contractor;
and (3) the principal who is deemed the real employer.
Under this scheme, the “labor-only” contractor is the agent
of the principal. The law makes the principal responsible to
the employees of the “labor-only contractor” as if the 48
principal itself directly hired or employed the employees.
These circumstances are not present in this case.
There are essentially only two parties involved under
the Agreement, namely, SONZA and ABS-CBN. MJMDC
merely acted as SONZA’s agent. The Agreement expressly
states that MJMDC acted as the “AGENT” of SONZA. The
records do not show that MJMDC acted as ABS-CBN’s
agent. MJMDC, which stands for Mel and Jay
Management and Development Corporation, is a
corporation organized and owned by SONZA and
TIANGCO. The President and General Manager of
MJMDC is SONZA himself. It is absurd to hold that
MJMDC, which is owned, controlled, headed and managed
by SONZA, acted as agent of ABS-CBN in entering into the
Agreement with SONZA, who himself is represented by
MJMDC. That would make MJMDC the agent of both ABS-
CBN and SONZA.
_______________
48 The second paragraph of Article 106 of the Labor Code reads:
There is “labor-only” contracting where the person supplying workers to an
employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited
and placed by such persons are performing activities which are directly related to
the principal business of such employer. In such cases, the person or intermediary
shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to
25/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed hearing after the submission of the position papers of the
by him. parties, thus:

606 Section 3. Submission of Position Papers/Memorandum

xxx

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

_______________
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
49 Rollo, p. 90.
As SONZA admits, MJMDC is a management company
607
devoted exclusively to managing the careers of SONZA and
his broadcast partner, TIANGCO. MJMDC is not engaged
in any other business, not even job contracting. MJMDC VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 607
does not have any other function apart from acting as Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
agent of SONZA or TIANGCO to promote 49
their careers in
the broadcast and television industry.
These verified position papers shall cover only those claims and
Policy Instruction No. 40 causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may
have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by all
SONZA argues that Policy Instruction No. 40 issued by supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective
then Minister of Labor Blas Ople on 8 January 1979 finally witnesses which shall take the place of the latter’s direct
settled the status of workers in the broadcast industry. testimony. x x x
Under this policy, the types of employees in the broadcast Section 4. Determination of Necessity of Hearing.—Immediately
industry are the station and program employees. after the submission of the parties of their position
Policy Instruction No. 40 is a mere executive issuance papers/memorandum, the Labor Arbiter shall motu propio
which does not have the force and effect of law. There is no determine whether there is need for a formal trial or hearing. At
legal presumption that Policy Instruction No. 40 this stage, he may, at his discretion and for the purpose of making
determines SONZA’s status. A mere executive issuance such determination, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit
cannot exclude independent contractors from the class of facts or information, including but not limited to the subpoena of
service providers to the broadcast industry. The relevant documentary evidence, if any from any party or witness.
50

classification of workers in the broadcast industry into only

two groups under Policy Instruction No. 40 is not binding The Labor Arbiter can decide a case based solely on the
on this Court, especially when the classification has no position papers and the supporting documents without a
51
basis either in law or in fact. formal trial. The holding of a formal hearing or trial is
something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of
Affidavits of ABS-CBN’s Witnesses 52
right. If the Labor Arbiter is confident that he can rely on
SONZA also faults the Labor Arbiter for admitting the the documents before him, he cannot be faulted for not
affidavits of Socorro Vidanes and Rolando Cruz without conducting a formal trial, unless under the particular
giving his counsel the opportunity to cross-examine these circumstances of the case, the documents alone are
witnesses. SONZA brands these witnesses as incompetent insufficient. The proceedings before a Labor Arbiter are
to attest on the prevailing practice in the radio and non-litigious in nature. Subject to the requirements of due
television industry. SONZA views the affidavits of these process, the technicalities of law and the rules obtaining in
witnesses as misleading and irrelevant. the courts of law do not strictly apply in proceedings before
While SONZA failed to cross-examine ABS-CBN’s a Labor Arbiter.
witnesses, he was never prevented from denying or
refuting the allegations in the affidavits. The Labor Arbiter Talents as Independent Contractors
has the discretion whether to conduct a formal (trial-type) ABS-CBN claims that there exists a prevailing practice in
the broadcast and entertainment industries to treat talents

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/32

9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
like SONZA as independent contractors. SONZA argues
that if such practice exists, it is void for violating the right
of labor to security of tenure.
The right of labor
53
to security of tenure as guaranteed in
the Constitution arises only if there is an employer-
employee relationship
_______________
50 New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission,
as amended by Resolution 3-99, series of 1999.
51 University of the Immaculate Concepcion v. U.I.C. Teaching and Non-
Teaching Personnel and Employees Union, 414 Phil. 522; 362 SCRA 242
(2001).
52 Columbus Philippine Bus Corp. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 417 Phil. 81; 364 SCRA 606 (2001).
53 Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution.
608
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
under labor laws. Not every performance of services for a
fee creates an employer-employee relationship. To hold
that every person who renders services to another for a fee
is an employee—to give meaning to the security of tenure
clause—will lead to absurd results.
Individuals with special skills, expertise or talent enjoy
the freedom to offer their services as independent
contractors. The right to life and livelihood guarantees this
freedom to contract as independent contractors. The right
of labor to security of tenure cannot operate to deprive an
individual, possessed with special skills, expertise and
talent, of his right to contract as an independent
contractor. An individual like an artist or talent has a right
to render his services without any one controlling the
means and methods by which he performs his art or craft.
This Court will not interpret the right of labor to security of
tenure to compel artists and talents to render their services
only as employees. If radio and television program hosts
can render their services only as employees, the station
owners and managers can dictate to the radio and
television hosts what they say in their shows. This is not
conducive to freedom of the press.
Different Tax Treatment of Talents and Broadcasters
54
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
54
The National Internal Revenue
55
Code (“NIRC”) in relation
to Republic Act No. 7716, as amended by Republic Act No.
_______________
54 Republic Act No. 8424. BIR Revenue Regulations No. 19-99 also
provides the following:
SECTION 1. Scope.—Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 244 and 108 of the
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, in relation to Section 17 of Republic Act
No. 7716, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act 8241, these Regulations are
hereby promulgated to govern the imposition of value-added tax on sale of services
by persons engaged in the practice of profession or calling and professional
services rendered by general professional partnerships; services rendered by actors,
actresses, talents, singers and emcees, radio and television broadcasters and
choreographers; musical, radio, movie, television and stage directors; and
professional athletes.
SECTION 2. Coverage.—Beginning January 1, 2000, general professional
partnerships, professionals and persons described above shall be governed by the
provisions of Revenue Regulation No. 7-95, as amended, otherwise known as the
“Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations”. x x x
55 Otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law.
609
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 609
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
56
8241, treats talents, television and radio broadcasters
differently. Under the NIRC, these professionals are
subject to the 10% value-added tax (“VAT”) on services they
render. Exempted from the VAT 57
are those under an
employer-employee relationship. This different tax
treatment accorded to talents and broadcasters bolters our
conclusion that they are independent contractors, provided
all the basic elements of a contractual relationship are
present as in this case.
Nature of SONZA’s Claims
SONZA seeks the recovery of allegedly unpaid talent fees,
13th month pay, separation pay, service incentive leave,
signing bonus, travel allowance, and amounts due under
the Employee Stock Option Plan. We agree with the
findings of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals that
SONZA’s claims are all based on the May 1994 Agreement
and stock option plan, and not on the Labor Code. Clearly,
29/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/32
9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 9/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

the present case does not call for an application of the

Labor Code provisions but an interpretation and
implementation of the May 1994 Agreement. In effect, © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
SONZA’s cause of action is for breach of contract which is
intrinsically
58
a civil dispute cognizable by the regular
courts.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 March 1999 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 49190 is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-

Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

_______________

56 Act amending Republic Act No. 7716, otherwise known as the

Expanded Value-Added Tax Law and other pertinent provisions of the
National Internal Revenue Code, as amended (December 20, 1996).
57 Section 109 of the NIRC provides:

Exempt transactions.—The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax:

xxx
(o) Services rendered by individuals pursuant to an employer-employee
relationship; x x x

58 Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Hon. Cruz, 207 Phil. 585; 122 SCRA 671
(1983).

610

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Court of Appeals

Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.

Note.—The power of control refers to the authority of

the employer to control the employee not only with regard
to the result of work to be done but also to the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished (Vinoya
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 324 SCRA 469
[2000])

——o0o——

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/32 central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a3754b8537763800003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/32